Should armed policeman (admittedly volunteers) be going on strike because they disagree with an inquest jury bringing in a verdict of unlawful killing after two officers shot dead a disabled man in the street?
And should senior officers be inferring that the law and the jury is wrong?
If these officers get their way, will the end result be that no officer will ever be charged with unlawful killing, whatever the circumstances, if it involves a firearm?

i'm afraid i agree with them.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'm afraid i agree with them.

so do i

Yep, me too - as I heard the guy that got shot had a table leg in a bag and claimed to anyone that would listen in the pub that it was a shotgun. When confronted with armed police he didn't comply with their instructions. Sad that he died, but these policemen aren't trigger-happy and have to make split-second decisions, if they feel they may now be prosecuted for doing their highly-trained job then I don't blame them for habing reservations.

I've been frustrated by the news coverage of this, as I can't remember the incident from 5 years ago.

All they mention about the bloke shot, is that he had a table leg in his hand.

Now how was he using this table leg, was he using it as if it were a gun, seen from a distance.
Brandishing it about shouting do ya feel lucky punks!!!

Or did he simply have it under his arm bought as a replacement at home.

Can anyone shed any light, so I can have a subjective opinion.

it was a table leg in a bag and he didn't comply with police instructions to put it down. That's all i can remember.

If hotphil is correct and he'd been telling people it was a shotgun (which would explain the armed police being there) then he pretty much brought it on himself.

Remind me not to nip for a quick half in town when i've next been to Wickes

They haven't actually gone on strike though have they - they are just no longer providing their voluntary services as firearms officers but are still active police officers. The firearms setup in the uk is such that you have to volunteer to be an armed officer and you can step down from that role any time you so wish...

I'm afraid I support the Armed Officers actions also. If the man was carrying a firearm he could have caused damage to another citizen. The fact he wasn't and didn't comply with police instructions lead to his sad death.

According to a BBC article the vitim could barely move as he was recovering from a cancer operation:

Shot man recovering from cancer op (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3752656.stm)

Other articles on the site claim he wasn't given a chance to respond to the police calls. I've found no evidence that he 'brandished' the table leg in a threatening manner.

At the end of the day an inquest jury heard all the evidence and found that this poor man had been unlawfully killed. The 2 officers have been suspended pending a further police investigation. If we do not investigate, and suspend when the killing is unlawful, where do we draw the line? Do the police not have the same duty of care as everyone else?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1335710,00.html

"The officer said he shouted for the man to "drop it" by which time he was looking straight at the officer in a "boxer’s stance" and was gripping the object with both hands. He fired just before his colleague, Inspector Neil Sharman, hitting him in the hand."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14372830?source=PA&ct=5

"Her[Mrs Stanley's] legal team challenged the officers' account and produced forensic evidence showing Mr Stanley was hit in the base of the skull, indicating that he was shot as he turned to face the officers. She told the inquest in evidence that her husband had undergone surgery for colon cancer only days before he died which left him unable to move quickly."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm

"Ms Stanley told the jury: "He couldn't do his shoelaces, he couldn't bend down, his stomach was still tender because of the wound and the stitches."

The first inquiry was a sham and gave an open verdict, the officers were put back on duty and I think this is what sparked off the 2nd enquiry, only then did we find that Mr Stanley made no threatening actions towards the police. Forensic evidence shows that Mr Stanley was shot in the base of his skull, so he must have been facing away from the police officers when they fired.

Ultimately, the police are there to protect the safety of the public and by striking they are putting the public at risk and not fulfilling their duty to us, especially in these worrying times. I think someone on here commented that once again the police are putting themselves before the public and I'd agree with that.

The BBC article quoted says it's a ten minute walk from the pub. He couldn't have been in that bad a physical condition to a) be in the pub b) walk unaided for at least 10 minutes on leaving the pub.

"PC Fagan said he had shouted "armed police" before firing when Mr Stanley turned around in a "deliberate, fluid movement".

He said: "He was clutching what I thought was a sawn-off shotgun with both hands. I thought I was about to be killed by someone holding a sawn-off shotgun." At that point both officers instinctively came to the decision to fire.

They each fired one shot and Mr Stanley died instantly. One bullet went through his head and another through his hand.

The inquest had heard that Mr Stanley, who had just been released from hospital after undergoing treatment for colon cancer, had difficulty walking, bending down and raising his arms."

The above is from a different report. Assuming it is an accurate, truthful summary of events I'm still with the cops on this one - someone tells me a guy's got a gun, the suspect does not respond to my warnings in a timely fashion and appears to then endanger my life with what I believe to be a lethal weapon - I'd have shot too. Quite whether shooting him in the head (aimed for or accidental) was right is, for me, more of an issue.

I certainly wouldn't want to voluntarily put myself in the position of facing charges for actions taken when I believed my life to be in genuine danger and think the officers are right in seeking clarification of the consequences of their actions. Of course they have a "duty of care" and shouldn't be reckless, but like I say if someone points a shotgun (or what I believe to be a shotgun) at me and doesn't respond to my requests to put it down, then I'm gonna drop him.

The most worrying thing is the fact that somewhere, something went wrong. If the police story is to be believed then something is wrong with the training or procedures.

I agree with this...

"Today Dr Reid recommended that research be carried out by Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office into police strategies for challenging people from behind, in particular those who have been affected by alcohol. Dr Reid said: "I recommend that scientists and other professionals carry out research into police strategies for challenging people from behind particularly those from special population groups including those affected by alcohol."

You can't blame the officers unless it can be shown they were acting with malicious intent. The responsibility for the man's death lies with the police as a whole.

I agree with you Phen, I think there must be problems with the strategies and procedures that are in place now. It was an odd chain of events that lead upto the shooting, but for an innocent man to be shot in the back of the head at what must have been a fairly close distance, something is wrong.

This extract from a Guardian editorial encapsulates what a lot of us have been saying:

What was not being said yesterday, but should have been, is the need to take last week's verdict of the jury seriously.

They listened to all the evidence and were faced with three options: an open verdict or lawful killing, both of which would only have needed the civil law test of "balance of probabilities". Instead they opted for the third, unlawful killing, which required the much higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". This is serious, since it signals that they believed the officers were not telling the truth. The officers said they only fired when Mr Stanley turned and was facing them. Yet ballistic evidence shows he was shot in the side of the head.

This is the first time in living memory such a verdict has been filed. The public have a right to expect the police to respect a jury's verdict too.

We on here, myself included, have not heard all the evidence wheras the jury had before reaching their verdict. Why can the police who are handing in their weapons not accept the result?

I also understand that the victim was deaf and probably unlikely to hear any challenge clearly. Surgery for cancer had left him partially disabled. Forensics have discredited police evidence.
It seems to me that the victim could have been anyone of us.
Let's face it, if you are walking down the street, minding your own business and are completely taken by surprise by somebody screaming in your ear might you a)freeze, b)flinch, c)run, d)jerk e)"whip round" f) ignore it (thinking someone else was being shouted at)?
All but a) would get you killed in this scenario.
I am worried that so many Forum members are siding with the police on this. That is, on the initial killing and also on the current "industrial action" Are they not to be made accountable under any circumstances?
No doubt the effect of this action will be to steer the CPS and Attorney General in the "right" direction.

of course they should be held accountable, but if i were a firearms officer i'd be handing in my gun as well.

If challenging someone who you think is armed, i'd rather be safe than sorry. And if that means being put in the dock myself later on, i'd rather not be expected to challenge armed suspects.

If the BBC is on the side with the jury, then the police must be totaly innocent , I would say !

Originally posted by poppins
If the BBC is on the side with the jury, then the police must be totaly innocent , I would say !

Hmm, what makes you think that?

This from The Scotsman:

2:49pm (UK)
Gun Police End 'Strike'

By Tony Jones and Nick Allen, PA News


Armed police were returning to the capital’s streets today after a potentially devastating unofficial “sympathy strike” triggered by the suspension of two officers was resolved.

Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens said an agreement had been reached in the dispute that erupted when a number of officers downed their firearms in support of two colleagues suspended over a fatal shooting.

Sir John, speaking outside New Scotland Yard, said the situation had been “resolved” and armed police involved in the action would be going back to work.

He added: “I am grateful to our officers for starting to resume their firearms duties and putting the safety of Londoners and their fellow officers ahead of their own concerns at this time.

“They do need more legal protection for the difficult job they do on our behalf.

“This cannot be achieved overnight but we are committed to working together to seek changes that will give them confidence to undertake their dangerous and demanding work.”

Originally posted by Cyclone
of course they should be held accountable, but if i were a firearms officer i'd be handing in my gun as well.
How are they accountable when they refuse to acknowledge a jury verdict and then pressurise the CPS ?(over an impending manslaughter charge)
Originally posted by Cyclone If challenging someone who you think is armed, i'd rather be safe than sorry. That's anyone of us that's been to B&Q and is walking home with a carrier bag with a set of chair legs/spirit level/dowelling in it then?
This isn't the only case recently either.
Does anyone remember the armed police breaking into that guys bedroom where upon they shot him dead.They said they thought he was armed....he was naked. I can only wonder at the size of his manhood and what he was threatening to do with it!

Yes, I remember that. Very nasty.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
How are they accountable when they refuse to acknowledge a jury verdict and then pressurise the CPS ?(over an impending manslaughter charge)
That's anyone of us that's been to B&Q and is walking home with a carrier bag with a set of chair legs/spirit level/dowelling in it then?
This isn't the only case recently either.
Does anyone remember the armed police breaking into that guys bedroom where upon they shot him dead.They said they thought he was armed....he was naked. I can only wonder at the size of his manhood and what he was threatening to do with it!

Ermmm, I said should, not that they necessarily were being in this case. If forensics contradicts their statements then it should be investigated.

These police had been called in response to someone apparently having a weapon. Do you often take your B&Q purchase and tell people in the pub that it's a gun? Then when a policeman orders you to drop the weapon and put your hands up you spin around and point it at them?

You can see it as trying to pressure the cps, i see it as the rest of the police rather sensibly declining to put their own lives at risk when they will apparently be at risk of going to jail for making the wrong call in a life or death situation.

Originally posted by Cyclone
These police had been called in response to someone apparently having a weapon. Do you often take your B&Q purchase and tell people in the pub that it's a gun? hmm I'm sure I've replied "a bazooka" or "rocket launcher" when asked similar questions in similar situations by nosey-parkers. Originally posted by Cyclone
Then when a policeman orders you to drop the wea pon and put your hands up you spin around and point it at them? If you didn't hear or you misheard and thought you were being attacked?The man couldn't spin..he was disabled.He was shot in the side of the head and so couldn't have been pointing anything!Originally posted by Cyclone
You can see it as trying to pressure the cps, i see it as the rest of the police rather sensibly declining to put their own lives at risk when they will apparently be at risk of going to jail for making the wrong call in a life or death situation.ie They feel they should be above the law.
Like the Hull boys in blue who actually stood and watched a black guy choke to death over 40 minutes and do nowt except laugh afterwards and make chimp noises? Not one even suspended!

Thousands of sqaddies (who were recruited with infinately less entry qualifications than coppers) have been patrolling areas such as Ulster, Kossovo, somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq with less incidents of unlawfull killings.

Doesn't this tell you something?

Yup. The coppers with guns are basically cowboys who should be issued with pea shooters for the publics safety!

it is not expecting to be above the law.
you think they should either be chucked into jail if they make a mistake and kill the wrong person, or they should expose themselves to a much higher level of risk by waiting.

and that's exactly why i wouldn't do it, why the hell should they risk their safety for people who have an opinion like yours. I'd hand my gun in and say "sod it, let the criminals shoot the public, rather them than me".